I'll bet I've looked at the ads for the Woodsman's Pal since I was a teenager in the early 1960s. I've looked and wondered, and I've looked and wondered some more, and I always come to the same conclusion as others here have. Namely, that a good, simple machete of whatever length is appropriate to your size, strength, and needs is a much simpler and better tool for cutting bushes, vines, and even very small trees. That "brush hook" on the back of the Woodsman's Pal seems to me like a nearly useless appendage in the real world. Evidently the manufacturer managed to palm off a bunch of the things on our government long ago, though, because some of them seem to have been official military issue, probably circa WWII. Those had leather washer handles with a D-handguard. Why a D-handguard? Goooooooood question. I've got one of Ron Hood's videos about a trip he, his wife, and some others made way up (or down?) the Amazon to visit some remote tribe of Indians and learn how they make a living in the jungle. Needless to say I guess, the Indians valued their simple machetes and they used them for about every cottonpickin' thing imaginable, except for sometimes cutting and splitting larger trees. They had a few axes for that chore. But they cut everything else and dressed fish and game with their machetes, often by choking up on the blade for better control. It seems that several inches of blade nearest the handle was not really sharpened. I nearly always go with the "simpler is better" theory, and it looks to me like the Woodsman's Pal is a collection of answers in search of a valid question.